Twin Imperatives In Budget Talks

January 17, 1996

President Clinton and the Republican congressional leaders are to resume budget talks Wednesday with two clear imperatives before them: to produce a credible plan to balance the budget and to preserve a social safety net worthy of the name.

The balanced-budget imperative appears finally to have been accepted all around. The credibility of our political leadership--not to mention the fiscal future of the nation--is at stake.

After decades of profligacy, Americans need to be assured that their elected leaders are capable of the most basic task of governance: making the choices necessary to match resources with responsibilities.

Punting the tough decisions to the voters in November, as both Clinton and House Speaker Newt Gingrich have suggested in recent days that they may, could prove politically advantageous to one side or the other. But it will be an advantage bought at the expense of more cynicism on the part of citizens about their elected leaders' seriousness of purpose. The time to do a balanced budget deal is now.

The second of the two imperatives--a truly credible social safety net--is less widely appreciated than the first, perhaps because most Americans feel safely above the need for help from the commonweal.

But the fact is that this great nation has a lot of needy people, too many of them children. Balancing the federal budget can be an occasion for rethinking how we go about helping those people; it cannot be allowed to become a subterfuge for abandoning them.

The GOP has made "devolution" a watchword of its revolution and, to that end, has wisely sought to give the states maximum authority over a number of programs that previously have been largely controlled by Washington. Welfare and Medicaid, two essential strands of the social safety net, are among those.

Clinton recently vetoed a GOP welfare-reform bill, citing among other flaws its repeal of the federal guarantee of aid for anyone who meets the current stringent criteria of need. He is insisting on a similar guarantee for Medicaid. Both demands are legitimate and necessary: a safety net that carries no guarantee is no safety net at all.

It should not be beyond the ability of Clinton and the Republican budget negotiators to find a way to harmonize their goals of greater latitude for the states and assured help for the needy.

Nor should the Republicans continue to insist on significantly curtailing the Earned Income Tax Credit. On the contrary, with minor adjustments, it ought to be the keystone of Republican welfare reform.

Balance the budget and preserve the safety net. They are not incompatible. They shouldn't be beyond the abilities of those who call themselves leaders.